දෙක සහ මැද නොතැවරීම - මජ්ඣේ සුත්තං

[ek_rosh]

Hey thanks for the explanation
One question, imho non-arising of Saccaya or non-arising of Sparsha (contact) is indeed Nirvana.
And Nirvana is නිත්ය, right??

As long as craving/thanha presents, all arising/non-arising Sakkayas are conditioned. Once craving is uprooted, no more conditions are left for sakkaya to arise again. That cessation is not dependent on conditions -> final liberation.

ex:

A >>----- BOX ------->> B

This box takes A as input and outputs B

Arising: When A is 1 - > B is 1. (B is conditioned by A)
non-arising: When A is 0 -> B is 0 (still B is conditioned by A) [difficult to see/ middle point]

Now destroy the box (craving/thanha)

B doesn't depend on any conditions anymore (permanently/liberation).

 

[nipund]

As long as craving/thanha presents, all arising/non-arising Sakkayas are conditioned. Once craving is uprooted, no more conditions are left for sakkaya to arise again. That cessation is not dependent on conditions -> final liberation.

ex:

A >>----- BOX ------->> B

This box takes A as input and outputs B

Arising: When A is 1 - > B is 1. (B is conditioned by A)
non-arising: When A is 0 -> B is 0 (still B is conditioned by A) [difficult to see/ middle point]

Now destroy the box (craving/thanha)

B doesn't depend on any conditions anymore (permanently/liberation).

does "B" exist even after box is destroyed ? (every example has limitations )
for me knowing box is box , is liberation , just knowing this will slowly cut down the energy to run the box which produce both A and B.

 

[ek_rosh]

does "B" exist even after box is destroyed ? (every example has limitations )
for me knowing box is box , is liberation , just knowing this will slowly cut down the energy to run the box which produce both A and B.

Yes, just an example (with its own limitations): A, B are interdependent, impermanent, "entities".. which have no core to exist by itself.